29 comments:

A heavily doctored bin Laden tape, released to the world as a transcript, with bin Laden not moving during the video of "recent" statements.

Look ... I'm all for the war, and believe it's going to be a long struggle, but the lack of any substantive critical view of these events by the folks in the blogosphere who are so keen to scrutinze every Reuters photograph for signs of Photoshoppery is just stunning.

Take a step back from the remembrance. Respect it, but step back emotionally for a moment, and put your critical thining cap back on.

My comments were not directed at you ... but at Ann and some of the other bloggers who can usually be counted on to provide much needed balance that you won't get from the national media.

Balance is the usefulness of blogs. Otherwise, blogs are just sentiment.

I'm amazed and awed every time I see those lights ... but that's not the point.

Not one blogger has looked at the latest bin Laden video with any incredulity or scrutiny.

Have you seen the video? Do you notice the amateurish editing? Do you notice that when bin Laden begins parroting Democratic Party talking points the video just stops ... becoming entirely still ... while the voice changes?

Have you even seen the video ... here, or elsewhere? It's not like it's not available. Strangely, it's difficult to find the actual video, but not reprints of the "transcripts" which have been widely quoted.

The video is a hoax. What's said in it is a hoax.

That the very same folks who excommunicated Dan Rather (rightfully) have failed to look upon this video critically is just stunning to me - and I've been ardent in my support for fighting the jihadists.

This video is laughably amateurish, but there has been zero critical look at it.

Let's stop for a moment and remember the victims of 9/11 ... but let's not let our sentiment get in the way of our critical thinking abilities.

I'm not looking for any specific conclusion ... rather, I'm looking to see if any of the bloggers who would normally scrutinze, say, a Reuters photograph for signs of manipulation, will apply that same level of scrutiny to this video.

This video purports to prove that Osama bin Laden is alive, and has a message for the United States. The messenger, and the message, is saying something.

I have formed my own conclusions about whether this video does that.

If the video stops just at the point where bin Laden starts to make comments of a recent nature, in an attempt to make it appear that he is still alive, doesn't that lend credence to the view that this video is a hoax?

If it's a hoax, what does that mean? Who benefits from this video? Who will see criticism from it? Why are some working so hard to prove that bin Laden is still alive?

It would be a simple matter for bin Laden to prove that he is alive. Does this video prove that?

Shouldn't we in the blogosphere approach this video with the same level of scrutiny we reserve for NY Times editorials?

Not to belabor this point, but here is what Allahpundit over at Hot Air has to say about the video:

"Here’s the full 25-minute version, although you’re better off skipping it and sticking with the transcript ..."

That's an odd comment, no? Why should we rely on the transcript when the video is available?

AllahPundit even suggest that the reason we shouldn't look at the video is : " ... very curiously, the video actually switches to a freeze frame of Bin Laden at the 1:55 mark and stays that way for the rest of the clip with only the audio still playing."

Let's play "what if!: What if Reuters or Heraldo Rivera released this video, and proclaimed it to be an interview with bin Laden, but just as the interviewer begins asking bin Laden questions that suggest that he and the Democrats have the same goals, do you think AllahPundit would tell us to just ignore the part where the video mysteriously freezes, and pay attention to the Reuters transcript of his alleged comments?

I don't think he would.

I think he would say: "Hey, wait ... just when bin Laden starts sounding like he's the spokesman for the Democratic Party, the video mysteriously freezes. This is an obvious hoax."

But neither he, nor any of the other bloggers who would normally expose such MSM hoaxes are looking at this video with that level of scrutiny.

On August 28, 2001 my wife and I took a boat from the South Street seaport that cruises around the harbor...it was a beautiful day and we really enjoyed being out on the water...we stood outside on the open deck so we could take some pictures but we were jostling for position with another couple who were making out from one end of the rail to the other...we wanted to take a pic with the trade center in the background...but we couldn't maneuver past the young lovers...so we said fuggedaboutit! we'll catch it next time...only there was no next time....enjoy your life when you can.

This isn't a claim of any special status or claim at victimization...no Cindy Sheehan stuff....my family was basically very, very lucky....but those people should be remembered...and mourned...and not forgotten in the partisan bullshit that flys around these days..

You are absolutely right in what you say. I want us to remember that day and what happened and especially the people it truly happened to. I don't want to see the building that is put up there hijacked to make points that have nothing to do with the events of 9/11. There are a ton of other places to put them.

Slim999 - Have you even seen the video ... here, or elsewhere? It's not like it's not available. Strangely, it's difficult to find the actual video, but not reprints of the "transcripts" which have been widely quoted.

The video is a hoax. What's said in it is a hoax.

Paranoid conspiracy rubbish.Besides the US, 20 other countries and many private agencies have the guy's voice, full computer face recognition scan on file...and 30 other countries..maybe not the same ones, have people who can lip-read someone speaking Arabic on a video to verify the voice syncs with the lips on video.

There are also other not so well known authentication methods.

The US says the tape is valid, others do not dispute it.

Sorry, but the CIA-Mossad did not blow up the WTC, Chem-trails are just jet's engine traces, not disbursing Corporate America's mind-control chemicals, aliens did not land at Roswell, Elvis is dead, and the bin Laden video is not fake.

********************There has been some talk of the probity of making mass mourning of 9/11 as intensive every year as the first out of some sense of duty to "The Victim Families" with all the emotional excess captured as a tradition we must obey, lest someone be offended.

I don't think that is healthy or in any way proportionate to how we commemorate other war losses.

It becomes a creepy Mournathon, and much of the tributes and memorials are simply excessive. A billion for WTC memorials? The Flight 93 memorial costing near 70 million for 30 victims with almost 10 acres of "reflective space" set aside for each passenger, and a 1.2-million annual staffing and upkeep cost? All the ceremonies of "hero cops" and reading off the names of the dead in Primetime?

Too much, too long.

If we televised reading off the names of WWII dead at 6 seconds a name, that would take 29.17 straight days without interruption. [420,000/(60seconds/6)(60)(24)]

Since 9/11 12.2 million Americans have died from various causes.

If we memorialize every death endlessly, we will be nothing but a people devoted to memorial rituals.

A day of WTC lights and ceremonies for those directly affected and their return to the stage, briefly when the 9/11 mastermind, KSM is tried or a few "good riddance comments when Binnie is whacked?

Fine.

But enough of the rest of it. And, anyone trying to use emotional blackmail to demand not cutbacks with "You go Tell the Victim Families it's Enough!!!

Well, my response would be:

1. Who annointed you spokeman for the vaunted "Victim Families"?

2. If you are instead a relative, acquaintance, or friend of a "Special Victim", why are they so special? Why do their deaths matter more, require more mourning than other tragic deaths?

the lack of any substantive critical view of these events by the folks in the blogosphere who are so keen to scrutinze every Reuters photograph for signs of Photoshoppery is just stunning.

The only thing lacking appears to be your willingness to actually read the sites you're criticizing.

I don't think there is a single "warblog" out there that still thinks the original plan was a success, and very few who think Bush has done either a good job with the occupation or a good job explaining the purpose and status of the war to Americans.

There is plenty of criticism of the way the war is being run. The problem the "pro-war" side faces is that the movement to simply surrender, cut and run -- rather than adjusting the way we fight and pushing for a win -- is gaining strength, and if that side wins then everybody loses.

So most of the war-blogosphere is focusing on attacking the surrender monkeys and their supporters in the press, because that's the most important part of the information war at the moment.

Perhaps when you pass no one will mourn…perhaps there is no one who will remember your first step…or the first time you were old enough to buy a rack of beers at Yankee stadium….or how you welcomed new patrons to your restaurant with a smile and a kind word ….or how you finally learned enough English to give shit back to the bartender when he ragged on you….perhaps no one will shed a tear when you are on your way to meet your friends Roehm and Hess in a fiery embrace…but some of us remember …and this week we will shed a tear…and light a candle….and pray for the repose of their souls.